Almost time for Rachel Garcia Signature Cleats?

Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch

Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.

Apr 16, 2013
1,113
83
I'm a little on the fence on both sides here. Admittedly, I don't give a rat's butt about football, but that's what we're really talking about here. There are some BIG bucks being made off the backs of these athletes. Some of them are truly using this opportunity to get a good college degree, with no real plans of going pro. The scholarship is a good deal for them. Some though, are just following the rules and trying to go pro. You're not allowed to go pro straight out of HS, unlike baseball. The NCAA and schools then turn around and make a lot of money off these kids. I don't know that I think that's fair. Especially if they get injured and lose all real hope of going pro. That doesn't really mean I like this ruling either, again, I'm on the fence. Just trying to have an open mind and see both sides of the issue.
 
Oct 4, 2018
4,611
113
For what it's worth: my daughter, who gave up her athletic career and athletic scholarship to pursue a nursing program, left the house at 0500 today for her second 12 hour unpaid clinical of the week. She's currently an LPN (which averages a $30-50K salary in Missouri) and now working on her RN. Nursing students don't get paid for clinical's even though they are doing the work, albeit with no experience, along side their paid counter parts. I'm not whining and neither is she. But tell me again why an athlete should be paid to go to college?

The most noble of professions seem to receive the least compensation. It's a problem.
 
May 6, 2015
2,397
113
I'm a little on the fence on both sides here. Admittedly, I don't give a rat's butt about football, but that's what we're really talking about here. There are some BIG bucks being made off the backs of these athletes. Some of them are truly using this opportunity to get a good college degree, with no real plans of going pro. The scholarship is a good deal for them. Some though, are just following the rules and trying to go pro. You're not allowed to go pro straight out of HS, unlike baseball. The NCAA and schools then turn around and make a lot of money off these kids. I don't know that I think that's fair. Especially if they get injured and lose all real hope of going pro. That doesn't really mean I like this ruling either, again, I'm on the fence. Just trying to have an open mind and see both sides of the issue.

there is no good solution that will be seen as fair for all. FB and MBB are completely different animals than all other sports. Hopefully, MBB becomes less of an issue, with the NBA offering a path (not certain where it starts) for HS kids who do not want to go to college soon.

that leaves FB, which is a huge moneymaker, especially in P5 conferences. the issue is, if you allow paid athletes (either direct, endorsements, etc.), gap between have and have not schools will widen exponentially. you will have kids being paid $50k a year to "endorse" a local car dealer, etc. not certain there is a good solution. if you piss off P% conferences and members enough, they will take their ball and start their own association, and then NCAA is dead, no FB $, MBB $ severly diminished.

I kinda like that my alma mater decided to get out of FB business decades ago (very small private college). still make money off FB though, bookstore sells shirts "XYZ football, undefeated since 195X"!
 
Jul 17, 2012
175
28
Kenmore, WA
Perhaps it should not be surprising, but California will soon have lots of company from other states with similar laws. According to the San Jose Mercury News’ Jon Wilner Washington, Colorado, New York, South Carolina, Kentucky, Nevada, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Minnesota, and Illinois are all working on similar legislation. At that point you will have significant chunks of the SEC, ACC, and Big 10 in addition to the Pac-12 where college athletes can be paid. The NCAA is going to have to make changes to their policies or be left behind while the power 5 forges their own path.

I read a quote from a congressional supporter in California that he saw the measure as really a racial justice law to help African American men who were bringing in millions for their universities, but not seeing any of that money. You can certainly debate the value of the education those athletes are getting (they don’t have the same academic experience non-athletes have), but given what the non-athletes are paying for that same educational opportunity it has significant value. It is also very clear that the non-revenue sports are not the driving force in this legislation or movement. Football is the biggest driver because it has both the biggest money behind it and the highest likelihood of lifelong physical impairment as a result of participation.

I do still think that top athletes in the non-revenue sports have the potential to really benefit from the laws as for most of them college sports is the pinnacle of their sport's prominence in the US. Even $25,000 for a local endorsement deal would be dramatically more than a softball player could make in the NPF.
 
Nov 18, 2013
2,255
113
It's important to remember that this new law does not "allow" athletes to make money from their likeness, image, etc..... That is already legal. What this new law does is restrict California schools from punishing them for doing so. That's an important distinction to make.

The NCAA's first move will be to challenge it in court, where it will make the case that this new law is unconstitutional because it restricts the rights of an organization the U.S. Supreme Court has already deemed as private (in the Jerry Tarkanian case) to make and enforce its own bylaws. Based on the NCAA’s track record, I like its chances to win that argument.

Current NCAA rules do NOT allow athletes to make money from their likeness or image. Girls can’t even use their own names to advertise softball lessons. I get why they do it, but it’s a dumb rule. Equivalency sports should allow kids to use their names or images to help cover costs since most aren’t on full rides.
 
Nov 18, 2013
2,255
113
Yes, hence the new law from California. Did you think I didn't know this or something?

Did you mean to say illegal, or did I misunderstand this?

“it’s important to remember that this new law does not "allow" athletes to make money from their likeness, image, etc..... That is already legal.”
 
Mar 28, 2014
1,081
113
Did you mean to say illegal, or did I misunderstand this?

“it’s important to remember that this new law does not "allow" athletes to make money from their likeness, image, etc..... That is already legal.”
No, I meant it as typed. It is already legal, ie.... not against the law, for an athlete to make money from their likeness/image. An OU football player could go right now and make a deal with a local car dealership to endorse their dealership. They won't be arrested like they would if they did something illegal, they would just be punished by the NCAA and/or lose their amateur status. There's a distinct difference between something that is Legal and something that is against the rules of a private organization.

If they get paid for their likeness/image, they break an NCAA rule and will thereby be punished by their school. This new law makes it illegal (against the law) for a California school to punish them for breaking the NCAA rule against making money from their likeness/image. That is what is important to remember here. The NCAA's first move will be to challenge it in court, where it will make the case that this new law is unconstitutional because it restricts the rights of an organization the U.S. Supreme Court has already deemed as private (in the Jerry Tarkanian case) to make and enforce its own bylaws.
 
Nov 18, 2013
2,255
113
No, I meant it as typed. It is already legal, ie.... not against the law, for an athlete to make money from their likeness/image. An OU football player could go right now and make a deal with a local car dealership to endorse their dealership. They won't be arrested like they would if they did something illegal, they would just be punished by the NCAA and/or lose their amateur status. There's a distinct difference between something that is Legal and something that is against the rules of a private organization.

If they get paid for their likeness/image, they break an NCAA rule and will thereby be punished by their school. This new law makes it illegal (against the law) for a California school to punish them for breaking the NCAA rule against making money from their likeness/image. That is what is important to remember here. The NCAA's first move will be to challenge it in court, where it will make the case that this new law is unconstitutional because it restricts the rights of an organization the U.S. Supreme Court has already deemed as private (in the Jerry Tarkanian case) to make and enforce its own bylaws.

Gotcha. I misunderstood your earlier post.
 
Jun 7, 2016
275
43
" Admittedly, I don't give a rat's butt about football, but that's what we're really talking about here. There are some BIG bucks being made off the backs of these athletes."
I think the country as a whole needs to re-evaluate what the college athlete is supposed to be. If these players are being prepped for a professional athletic career, let the NBA & NFL foot the bill or start their own league. For jock sniffer alumni that needs bragging rights for their former school, grow up. These athletic programs have perverted entire college campuses. Dual & duplicative facilities for NCAA athletes and "other" facilities for NARPs. Doesnt seem right to me that the nerd who has to tutor the marginally qualified athlete cant use the same training facilities.
But then, my wife says, I should eat more Snickers bars.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
42,830
Messages
679,474
Members
21,443
Latest member
sstop28
Top